Case Law Details
It is now well settled that the charge of bribery and corruption though punishable as a criminal offence (and which was the subject matter of a criminal case in the present matter), does not mean that it is not a misconduct under the Service Regulations. It is equally a misconduct in as much as a public servant is expected to work honestly and diligently. Any conduct which is unbecoming of a public servant and brings his image and reputation, together with that of the organization in disrepute, if committed, then, all the more, the avenue of disciplinary proceedings/ Departmental Enquiry is open, irrespective of the outcome of the criminal proceedings. In fact, such proceedings can also be initiated during the pendency of the criminal case. Therefore, on conclusion of the criminal case and the same resulting in the employee’s acquittal, he may be reinstated in service, but that does not mean that he would be entitled to payment of wages and salary for the time he did not work. A public servant cannot as of right, therefore, demand these dues as he has rendered no service nor has he performed any work. Even otherwise, back wages do not follow reinstatement and as a matter of course. Everything depends on facts and circumstances of each case.
As can be seen from said Service Regulation 10A, an employee who is acquitted should be reinstated in service, but would not be eligible for any payment from the date of termination of his service to the date of his reinstatement, on the principle of “NO WORK NO PAY”. He would, however, be eligible for restoration of his seniority and other terminal benefits.
In view of this clear Regulation, and the validity of which has not been challenged in these proceedings, we are unable to agree with Ms Sarnaik’s submission that it would be inapplicable to the Petitioner, because his was a case where he was acquitted by the trial court and was not acquitted in appeal. This Court in the case of Ramchandra Bapusaheb Desai Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited,1 (in paragraph 10 of its decision) has categorically held that a perusal of this Regulation (Regulation 10-A) would indicate as to how in case an employee gets acquitted in appeal or is acquitted otherwise by the trial court itself, he shall be reinstated in service. He would however not be eligible for any payment from the date of termination of his service to the date of his reinstatement on the principle of ‘No work no pay’. We, therefore, find no substance in the argument of Ms Sarnaik that this Regulation would apply only in a case where an employee is first convicted by the trial court, and thereafter, acquitted in appeal. The principle of “NO WORK NO PAY”, would apply not only in cases where an employee is first convicted and thereafter acquitted in appeal, but would also apply in a case of an employee who is acquitted by the trial court itself. We must mention here that even in the case of Ramchandra Bapusaheb Desai Vs Maharashtra State Electricity Distribution Company Limited1 the Petitioner was acquitted by the trial court itself. Despite this, placing reliance on Regulation 10-A, this Court took the view that the Petitioner therein was not entitled to any payment from the date of termination of his service to the date of his reinstatement. Not only is the said decision binding on us but we are in full agreement with the same.
RELEVANT EXTRACT OF THE JUDGMENT
2. The brief facts necessary for appreciating this contention are as follows:-
Please become a Premium member. If you are already a Premium member, login here to access the full content.
